Re: GM Participation

From: David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Henry Penninkilampi (invalid address) writes:
> Does this logic extend to Game Designers and Programmers?  It's obvious
> that they would have an intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the
> game, and thus would have an undeniable advantage over everyone else.

This certainly isn't undeniable.  I've played in a fair number of games
where (1) the designer and/or programmer could play in the game, and yet
wouldn't have any advantage because everyone in the game had equal
access to exactly the same information.  One example is Galaxy, where
the source code is and was public, so anyone could read it and know
everything about how the game works.  Another example is Phoenix, where
the source code is not public, but the working of the game is documented
in complete detail in the rules, so that everything that one could learn
by reading the code is also known just by reading the rules.  There are
a fair number of other games in the same category.

Indeed I've played in some games where I believe that by studying the
information available to me I actually understood how the game worked
better than the programmer or designer did.

> Does this, then, lead us to the interesting state of affairs where a
> person is allowed to design or program a game, but then is morally
> obliged not to play?

Many games do rely on keeping certain information about game internals
secret from the players.  The game programmer or designer often then
can't compete on an equal basis with players in the game.  Of course
there's no "moral obligation" involved, except to avoid dishonesty.
Even in such games, I've often seen a "designer challenge" where (1) the
designer or programmer plays in the game and (2) everyone knows that
that's the case.  As long as everyone knows what the situation is, and
chooses to accept it, then there can't be a "moral" issue.

David desJardins

References

GM Participation (was Re: VOTE: Your primary method of diplomacy)
David J Porter <porterd@netaccess.co.nz>
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: GM Participation (was Re: VOTE: Your primary method of diplomacy)
"Steve Pritchard" <steve@spelbind.demon.co.uk>
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: GM Participation
spamfree@metropolis.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

GM Participation (was Re: VOTE: Your primary method of diplomacy)
David J Porter <porterd@netaccess.co.nz>
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: GM Participation (was Re: VOTE: Your primary method of diplomacy)
"Steve Pritchard" <steve@spelbind.demon.co.uk>
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: GM Participation
spamfree@metropolis.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000